If you watch the video, they cover this ("Why aren't the cops hit with license violations for public performance of these songs?") - basically, a judge would have to be convinced by the rightsholders that they intended for the music to be heard by a wide audience, which is clearly the opposite of what they want.

It's the same reason that you can't be "hit with license violations" for listening to music in your car with the windows down, effectively.

There is another element here. The courts have ruled that police actions on duty and in public interactions are consider public and not subject to most privacy laws, including recording them without permission. This means that their actions can be recorded and broadcast (the very reason they are playing this music to avoid that). It shouldn't matter what the intent is if they are a public figure, then they should know that others can film them and that recording can be broadcast. So they know they are being recorded as a public official and that it could be broadcast to a wider audience. Playing a song to try to limit that broadcast is a completely illogical and stupid idea. If they didn't play it, there wouldn't be any copyright music to be concerned with. By playing it, they know this video could be broadcast on platforms or media that don't filter and that it absolutely, without question, leads to unlicensed reproduction.

Basically standards for public officials are different from normal people.

> Basically standards for public officials are different from normal people.

I agree in general, but don't see how that applies in this case.

I don't see any difference to your parent's example of someone playing music with their car windows down. Driving a car out in public, you don't have an expectation of privacy and can be filmed by any passerby, and "this video could be broadcast on platforms or media that don't filter and that it absolutely, without question, leads to unlicensed reproduction."

"you don't have an expectation of privacy and can be filmed by any passerby"

That's not true in every state. Many states require consent, or at least implied consent through notification of recording, or have restrictions on how such recordings can be used/broadcast.

Do stores (or government buildings) need a license to play music? They are public spaces/entities and know that people can hear and record the music. Do you need a license to play music at a family BBQ even though the neighbors can hear it? No.

> a judge would have to be convinced by the rightsholders that they intended for the music to be heard by a wide audience, which is clearly the opposite of what they want.

I would actually argue exactly that they are intending for the music to be heard by a wide audience. Their audience is "anyone physically around so they know that filming will have this affect".

Intend, or are aware it will happen?

"Why aren't the cops hit with license violations for public performance of these songs?"

Because when you're in a position of power you get to do what you want. But probably also that playing on a personal device is not considered public performance (although courts have ruled officer actions on duty are public and recording them is not subject to privacy most laws, which could make it public performance, but good luck getting a court to agree)

You and I both know that would be way too cool to happen in real life.

Are copyrights like trademarks? i.e. if you don't enforce them, they stop existing?

That would be convenient.

Self-hosting has essentially no ability to reach people. You'll be DoS'd off the map if your video is even remotely popular. You need a real platform to reach the public. That's why people care about the moderation and takedown policies of the big platforms. Self-hosting won't ever solve the problem.